I’m not sure what is happening in this thread, lol. If you are a liberal in CA, seems like electoral college means your vote is “non-essential”. So, donate to help Biden (err the liberal candidate) be competitive in other states. I live in Texas and its purple!. Your money will help a lot here. Narrator?

Good point. My bad. I just made exactly your point in another thread too, I was so busy adding in “… and a little fun” that I shot the whole “vigorous debate…” point of my own damn thread in the foot. Yea, I suck.

So, I’m going to possibly invalidate the votes already made by changing the Q. In fact, for a second time. For the record, the premise has went from “typical CA liberal pussy” to “typical SoCal liberal” to “voter in a ‘battle ground’ state”. Yea I suck,

My cousin @ Trolly and me have a classic Troll Feud going back to when we were Trolly McTrollson and Shame Trolly !!!1! on 2+2. @ Trolly specializes in “herp derp”-ing FIRST!!!1! into my OPs. He’s batting around .250 over the last 10+ years. This time he hit a grand slam: just 8 minutes. The fact that he hit this grand slam at 10:44 pm EDT on a Sunday really shows the dedication he has to his trolling craft.

Concrats, my cousin, on your interwebs win !!!1!

Rest assured, it’s all good nature kidding, and all just a part of the “… and a little fun”. We’re kissing cousins, and it always ends up like this…

I’ll stop trolling you back cuzz, when you stop staying up all night just to “herp derp” my OPs. Sound fair? Get some rest.

Well, I seems my cousin, Trolly McTrollson is being just a little bit shy. Funny thing that… he certainly wasn’t shy at 10:44 pm on Mother’s Day Sunday… when he only waited a mere eight minutes to “herp derp” this poor innocent newborn thread.

So, even though @ Trolly had the option of going first, as I was the one who issued this challenge… I guess I’ll just need to kick off this trolling Heads Up Free Style Throw Down myself…

Like I’ve been saying, it’s a real Q, and it would make me a tiny bit happier if folks would vote in my poll.

One way of looking at it would be to turn it inside-out so to speak, like this…

Let’s say a Hypothetical Koch Bro (HKB) had a Night Before Christmas experience, and came to realize he might well be the most evil English speaker alive today. So to make things right, he does exactly what I’d do… he runs straight to a Hypothetical OAC (HOAC), and tells her: “I’m prepared to vote for you -and- donate $100m -and- phone bank 20hrs a week (messaging)”. But, that darn evil genius interrupts with: “Like LOL, no dude, one only.” So HKB says: “I’ll let HOAC decide.”

Point #1: Let’s continue our analysis of my little Q turned inside out… this time by imagining that darn evil genius was playing his darn evil game with a US Senate candidate personally. Let’s further stipulate that “messaging” for a candidate means personally appearing at rallies/etc, and being featured/quoted in campaign media/etc… while policy statements/etc, and formal debates/etc are not considered “messaging”.

So what are TED’s (typical elephant or donkey Senate candidate) options ?

Vote? TED is the nominee of a major political party. He literally has 100s of 1000s of people expecting him to fulfill his duty to run the best campaign he can. And that means doing the fund raising, and doing the messaging. Sure, our evil genius’s powers are just short of a gods… but the ballot booth is still private. Nobody will ever know if TED didn’t vote for himself. He can just lie. And being a politician… we already know he’s good at that.

For the candidate himself personally, voteHarder™ is never going to be the correct pick.

Message?: So, for the candidate themselves personally, the only choices are (a) campaigning personally, also using surrogates, while self-funding their campaign -vs- (b) only using surrogates, and aggressively fund raising.

For a Senate campaign, only the very rich are going to be able to self-fund their own campaign. Of those very rich, some might not care to fund it themselves (for the obvious reasons). Of those very rich, some might be so odious that not personally being featured by the campaign is a feature, not a bug (kinda like the donkeys are trying to hide the stupid potato in POTUSBOWL). But there certainly are such billionaires out there, so for those few… messaging is the correct pick.

Accept Donations? Nobody ever said having an evil genius all up in your face is fun. But excepting the non-odious and eccentric multi-millionaires, for TEDs at the Senate candidate level…

Point #2 Continuing our “bizarro world” exploration of my Q, what if that darn evil genius went to our Senate candidate personally, and said: same Q, except you make one decision that covers all your supporters, and all your potential voters. What would be the correct choice for our hypothetical typical elephant or donkey Senate candidate…

Voting? While like duh, he’d lose 100% if zero of his potential voters actually ended up voting for him. There is no need to even examine te donate or message options. VoteHarder™ is obviously the only correct choice.

Point #3: While Point #1 (the candidate personally would choose “accept donations”, barring some edge cases involving self-financed campaigns), and Point #2 (the candidate would chose “vote” for all their potential voters as a group), are interesting in that they demonstrate that the Q is not trivial, or obvious, or has a one-size-fits-all answer… they are not analogous reverse counterparts to the dilemma rank-n-file voters would be faced with if confronted by our evil genius. OTOH, Point #3 is just such an analogous reverse counterpart.

Under Point #3, our evil genius sidles up to our Senate candidate, and says: “Same Q, but this time how it relates to an individualized marginal voter. Would you, as the candidate, want such a marginal individual to vote, or donate, or to say volunteer to work a phone bank doing push-polling (messaging)?”

Point #3A: First off, we run into a great glaring difference between the normal world version of the Q: what a marginal individual voter would choose -vs- the “bizzaro” world version of the Q: what the candidate would want such a marginal voter to choose. And the reason for this great glaring difference is this: by our premise (ver 3, yes I suck) our “battle ground” voter feels voting is important, works, and is actually a duty. On the candidate side, of course they feel voting is important and works… by definition.

However, candidates don’t feel the voting public has any effective duty to vote.

Now, let’s remember this old truth: you can tell a politician is lying because words are spewing out of their pie-hole. Sure, all these snake-oil peddlers are going to carry on about how voting is better than baseball, apple pie, Chevy’s or even your own mom. Luckily for us, however, we don’t need to get our hands covered in filth trying to evaluate the truth value of their gibberish. Action speaks louder than words. We can simply look at the historical record.

We already know that the elephants don’t feel that the voting public has any effective duty to vote. They are, in fact, a party who actively pursues voter suppression as a strategy.

In general the donkeys, as the majority party, and as the relatively less funded party (on a voter per capita basis, and not withstanding the WOAT H.Clinton’s losing reversal of this generality in POTUSBOWL 2016)… are going to be in general… in favor of increased voter turnout overall.

But of course, there are plenty of localized examples where the tables are turned, and the donkey candidate would benefit from reduced voter turnout overall. And sure, the donkeys haven’t earned a reputation for flat out voter suppression… they do have a track record of doing everything short of outright suppression to keep the number of voters down in these localized situations.

But really it’s more obvious than that. Every effective ad that targets a candidate’s supporters to get off their butt and vote… is an ad that does not target the opponents supports to do the same (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective). Every effective ad that targets the opponent’s supporters to give up and be lazy and not bother to go vote… is an ad that does not target the candidate’s supports to be so lazy (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective). Every effective ad that targets the undecided possible non-voters to vote for the candidate… is an ad that does not target that demographic to vote for the opponent (otherwise it wouldn’t be effective).

Every GOTV effort that is party-centric (as opposed to helping all voters get to the polls, regardless of party), or geographically targeted, or targeted in any other way what-so-ever, are also excellent examples.

Cliffs: Virtually every strategy and tactic of modern campaigning obviously and glaringly highlights this basic truth: to the candidates themselves, and regardless of what lies they may habitually spew, there is no effective duty of the rank-n-file voters to actually vote.

Cliffs: Virtually every strategy and tactic of modern campaigning obviously and glaringly highlights this basic truth: to the candidates themselves, and regardless of what lies they may habitually spew , there is no effective duty of the rank-n-file voters to actually vote.

I’m going to pause my lonely, perhaps solitary, journey through the land of pointless points at this point. The reason being that Point #3A (above) is really the lynch-pin of this whole totally not pointless thread. So in the off chance any UnStuckers are following along with my chat, and have reason to disbelieve the above isn’t true… speak up now or forever hold your peace… or chime in later I guess, it’s all good.

In the meantime let’s chat a little about those darn evil geniuses. The evil genius concept is the creation R.Descartes. For us math-philosophy double majors Descartes is like our Bo Jackson… if Jackson played baseball like B.Ruth (“I think, therefore I am”) and played football like J.Thorpe (Cartesian Plane). The evil genius concept allows a hypothetical to be set up without going through the tedious and pointless effort of creating a “realistic” back story behind said hypothetical.

The evil demon, also known as malicious demon and evil genius, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In the first of his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes imagines that an evil demon, of "utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me." This evil demon is imagined to present a complete illusion of an external world, so that Descartes can say, "I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are mere Some ...

In the meantime, five full free style days have now passed since my Round #1 contribution. Therefore, I am officially invoking fusensho scoring for Round #1. Current score of this Heads Up Free Style Throw Down:

If we all post ponies, may [MissileDog] will just give up on this thread.

Trolly:

Will you please stop?

Shame Trolly !!!1!:

Sure, I’ll stop trolling you back cuzz, when you stop being a mean spirited micro-bully. Sound fair? Stop with all your hating.

Trolly McTrollson has always been a mean spirited micro-bully. The top post was made 2013-9-25 on 2+2. Notice how Trolly McTrollson puts on an attitude, and dares to talk down to his fellow 2+2er. Notice how Trolly McTrollson is mean.

This wasn’t the first time Trolly McTrollson micro-bullied MissileDog (pix below). But it would be last. He micro-bullied MissileDog right on out of 2+2 Politardia… never to return. The Missile was a good little dog. Boo! Hiss! Shame Trolly !!!1! … and that’s the creation of Trolly McTrollson’s nemesis.

The second quotes is the “herp derp” @ Trolly shit ITT. Notice how @ Trolly puts on an attitude, and dares to talk down to his fellow UnStucker. Notice how @ Trolly is mean. Notice how @ Trolly micro-bullies. Trolly McTrollson has always been a mean spirited micro-bully.